BACKGROUND

Histological classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has become more and more important for clinical management, but relatively few is known regarding the swiftness with which the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of RCC was adopted in the daily routine diagnostics.

AIM

To retrospectively review the histological diagnosis of RCC within the context of 2016 WHO classification followed by survival analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective register based analysis of RCC diagnosis between 1998 and 2017 and survival analysis.

RESULTS

1440 RCC cases were registered between 1998 and 1917. According to 2016 WHO classification, 77.7% clear cell RCC and 22.3% non-clear cell RCC were diagnosed. A total of 37 rare subtypes were recorded, among those 1% MiT family translocation RCC, 0.35% acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, 0.35% multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, 0.35% collecting duct carcinoma, 0.3% mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma, 0.1% clear cell papillary RCC and 0.1% RCC with (angio)leiomyomatous stroma. Cox regression analysis showed significant different overall survival and progression-free survival between the histological subtypes.

DISCUSSION

The complexity of the 2016 WHO classification of RCC put high demands on histopathological diagnostics. At University Medicine Center Rostock morphological distinct RCC entities have been mostly diagnosed by conventional means via hematoxillin and eosin stained slides, but beyond immunohistochemistry additionally molecular techniques were established. The histologic subtyping of RCC according to 2016 WHO classification has prognostic significance and might have predictive significance for unique therapeutic approaches.